3 ms·
You would have to ask the individual(s) who profess to have been harmed. Claiming "it must be X" and then dismissing X is approaching a straw man. Restorative
by kelseyfrog 4y ago
You would have to ask the individual(s) who profess to have been harmed. Claiming "it must be X" and then dismissing X is approaching a straw man.
Restorative justice practices are notoriously antithetical to the adversarial justice system we're used to dealing with. Assumptions we make in adversarial justice systems like open observation to ensure a public check on proceedings are not part of restorative practices. Even "there is one objective truth" are not implicitly part of restorative justice systems.
The existence and practice of alternative justice systems bring to light the mechanical sympathy between reality perception and justice systems. For those who subscribe to an ideology that contains a single objective reality, the idea that not everyone believes the same way can cause an intense counter reaction. I've seen this happen to people myself.
At the interaction between these two, there exists a sliver where we can say, if the book reader didn't want to be beholden to such systems, they could have voted with their feet and chose to educate themselves at a university which practiced a system of justice compatible with their beliefs. By choosing Stanford, they implicitly consented to the system Stanford uses, restorative justice ~et al~ etc.
This is a long way of saying, we may never know the nature of the harm.
- chongli 4y agoJust a minor nitpick: et al is only used when listing people. When listing things we use etc.
- kelseyfrog 4y agoThank you! You made it click for me :)
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> by choosing Stanford, they implicitly consented to the system Stanford uses, restorative justice et al. And other people, including Stanford alumni and donors and other constituents, are saying that if this is the result of restorative justice, it's perhaps an experiment that has run its course in its current form.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Karrot_Kream 4y agoIndeed, similar logic was often used by Communist states to justify their judicial systems. The adversarial justice system of the US was an example of bourgeoisie justice, designed to uphold bourgeoisie capital relations. The Soviet judicial system was thought to be an instance of Proletarian Justice [1]. [1]: Vyshinskii on Proletarian Justice: https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1924-2/socialist-legality/socialist-legality-texts/vyshinskii-on-proletarian-justice/ https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1924-2/socialist-legality/soci...
- kelseyfrog 4y agoThat's funny. The reality is that restorative justice today has its roots in specific indigenous justice practices. Specifically the Kitchener experiment in Ontario, Canada in the 1970s[1]. More than happy to hear your critique about indigenous justice systems though, since it's more relevant. 1. http://www.brattleborocjc.org/blog/indigenous-roots-of-restorative-justice http://www.brattleborocjc.org/blog/indigenous-roots-of-resto...
- Karrot_Kream 4y agoI wasn't being glib. I think the observation that liberal courts often favor richer entities is true. The idea that bourgeoisie capital relations need to be suppressed for true justice to occur isn't that hard to believe. The problem when justice systems try to seek some form of restitution based on an unaccountable definition of harm is a consequence. I'm of the opinion that justice requires some form of agreed standard, norms should be left up to discretion as little as possible. If you're interested in why the idea of harms and complete community based justice can have unintended side effects, I highly recommend reading Rawls (Theory of Justice.) A really fun essay in this vein that I enjoy is Joreen's Tyranny of the Structureless if you're not familiar with it already.
- warcher 4y agoWasn't this an anonymous tip, precluding the possibility of any form of dialogue?
- kelseyfrog 4y ago"Hi, I'm not revealing my identity, but my friend John spoke to me about how upset he was about Jane doing X and I thought I should bring it to your attention." Anonymous tip, possible to bring the parties together. No contradiction.